Interesting... but buying rockets from the Russians is OK...
My problem is the term "key rocket motor ingredient" ... we need to do away with solids. Full stop.
Solids are very good for many military systems.
Quote from: Lar on 06/23/2017 12:37 amMy problem is the term "key rocket motor ingredient" ... we need to do away with solids. Full stop.As long as the Pentagon wants/needs solids for ICBM's, SLBM's, THAAD, Patriot, AMRAAM, ad nauseum, there will be a need to support the solid propellant industry in this country. You can argue that they shouldn't be used for man-rated launch vehicles, but "doing away" with them totally is wishful thinking. And since ICBM's aren't launched very often, one way to keep the solids industrial base going is to keep them busy making commercial boosters. You may not like the logic, but that's the underlying driver.
Quote from: Kabloona on 06/23/2017 09:02 pmQuote from: Lar on 06/23/2017 12:37 amMy problem is the term "key rocket motor ingredient" ... we need to do away with solids. Full stop.As long as the Pentagon wants/needs solids for ICBM's, SLBM's, THAAD, Patriot, AMRAAM, ad nauseum, there will be a need to support the solid propellant industry in this country. You can argue that they shouldn't be used for man-rated launch vehicles, but "doing away" with them totally is wishful thinking. And since ICBM's aren't launched very often, one way to keep the solids industrial base going is to keep them busy making commercial boosters. You may not like the logic, but that's the underlying driver.But that logic doesn't even hold up if you compare budgets. The military budget is far larger than any income from commercial or NASA use. If they can't make a sustainable business from military contracts, they don't know what they are doing, and should quit. And arguing from other - smaller - income to help offset costs (what costs? massive income!) is just a sellers marketing push.
And since ICBM's aren't launched very often, one way to keep the solids industrial base going is to keep them busy making commercial boosters. You may not like the logic, but that's the underlying driver.
Quote from: gongora on 06/23/2017 12:53 amSolids are very good for many military systems.But do solids always require AP?! Missile most of the time use more exotic oxidizers.Doesn't this show that they chose a wrong factory design. The same situation as with the F-35.OATK NGL could be a good solution. As is going fully for HAN, ADN, RMX, HMX, CN-20/HNIW. But TRL...
Quote from: Kabloona on 06/23/2017 09:02 pmAnd since ICBM's aren't launched very often, one way to keep the solids industrial base going is to keep them busy making commercial boosters. You may not like the logic, but that's the underlying driver.Or scale down the facilities, so they match the current/new demand/ update for the new oxidizers. Go for stage replacement after ~15years. The old stages could be used on small launchers; Minotour/Athena (with liquid upper-stages).I've written this before. Stimulate small launcher development by using their upper-stage engines on surplus solids. Why are those four (at VAB more) launch sites for surplus ICBM/SLBM standing dormant. I think each site must have at least three annual launches. This makes these sites also cheaper to use for the micro launch vehicles.Why can't US companies launch their small/cube satelites on US launchers? Why can't US companies offer attractive services for Planetlabs, Spire Global, enz.?This year three PSLV's and two Soyuz launches bring a lot of US cubesat's to orbit. Not even SpX can offer a decent service to these companies. Possibly the pentagon could spread out the ICBM/SLBM procurement?I think it's fast procurment capability in war times (aka WO3 scenario) that couses this problem.The AP production facilities require NGL! Or far higher use of Pegasus, Minotaur and Angara or some new solid rockets. Since the Spaceshuttle program stopped, only two five segment ground tests have been executed. and <10 pegasus/GBI.
HAN is also 1.3 is i'm not mistaken. Stability and ISP is less unfortunately, at this moment.
Isn't there a law against using most of the surplus solids for orbital launch, so they won't compete with our thriving small launcher industry?
Quote from: gongora on 06/24/2017 12:38 amIsn't there a law against using most of the surplus solids for orbital launch, so they won't compete with our thriving small launcher industry?No the law (rules) predates thriving small launcher industry and prevents their use for all commercial flights which is why Castor-120 based Taurus and Pegasus came about.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 06/24/2017 12:44 amQuote from: gongora on 06/24/2017 12:38 amIsn't there a law against using most of the surplus solids for orbital launch, so they won't compete with our thriving small launcher industry?No the law (rules) predates thriving small launcher industry and prevents their use for all commercial flights which is why Castor-120 based Taurus and Pegasus came about.I think you mean Minotaur. Pegasus doesn't use Gov't surplus motors, though it did benefit from Hercules' Small ICBM program technology that Hercules put into developing the Pegasus motors.